tv [untitled] January 31, 2011 8:30am-9:00am PST
garage is the location we are proposing. what happens here is that we are trying to pick up the retaining wall so that it is supported by the main wall of the house. what they have right now is a been coming across to pick up the main wall of the house and then a secondary been for this portion in the front of the house. by doing this, we are not eliminating existing retaining walls at the property line. there is cost savings. there is also cost savings in the section because of the excavation, the highlighted area is the applicants garage and also this sits higher. so, there is about a 4 ft. 6 or
4 ft. 10 savings underneath that could be saved. everything in both in the walkway, i see that that has to be demolished anyhow in order to retain the existing walk away. our proposal is to raise the front wall by about 12 inches. this would say if -- save the removal and replacement of the trees and also maintain a driveway between the trees that would hopefully save -- >> what is the differential between the cost of what you're proposing and the cost of these -- >> i know that there is $10,000
just for the trees. >> leave that out. >> if i look at the removal of the existing retaining wall, about 4 feet 6 inches of excavation and about the forming of beams and such. i estimate there could be as much it as 30,000 in savings. >> you say this is a net gain? >> that is the way i see this but i do this in regards to an architectural review. i think it requires a little bit more investigations to look at the cost savings. >> i am the consulting arborist. i know you have my report and
you have reviewed that. i would like to impress upon you with a significant importance of these trees to this particular block in this neighborhood. the street tree that is just left of center is one of those that is approved for removal. the hollywood juniper is where the new construction would occur and it could not be saved under the additional proposal. the excavation would be clear by 5 feet. this would allow the retention of the tree.
these are not insignificant trees. they are important to the neighborhood and contribute significantly. thank you. >> i am ed personal attorney. we are trying to turn this into a win-win situation. we can come up with a better solution for everyone's situation and also save a very important parking spot. parking is a premium. thank you. >> have -- seen these plans
before? >> yes, they have. >> we can hear now from massa and bullock. the >> good afternoon. we plan to have a garage. it is frequently difficult to find parking adjacent to our homes. when antonio returns home, he is often unable to park near our home. the places that he does find it requires walking up and down steep hills. he is actually disabled. we plan to install a garage
underneath our home to guarantee parking for antonio. this requires the removal of two trees. and you can see on the right hand side is the sidewalk tree and behind it is a tree on our property. so, we actually received approval to remove both of these truce on september 27th. -- both of these trees host. it could become a significant tree which is the way that the juniper is currently defined and how the building code works. the removal of the sidewalk tree is necessary to provide car
access of the street. removal of the tree on our property is necessary to enable activation of the garage which would be at the front of our house. after evaluating approaches, we decided the only practical way to install the garage involves removal of both trees. we do plan to replace one of those. mr. hardy has proposed an alternative approach. this is the goal of leaving the two trees in tact. his goal is similar to solutions we have already evaluated but does not meet our needs. in addition, one of the evaluate your states that there is no way to excavate and install the garage without removing the juniper tree on our property.
mr. hardy claims that this is a win-win for us. this is not the case because it does not meet our needs. even if it is feasible, his approach would require considerable time to go through the planning and permit processes to get approval for plans which we have been developing over the last 12 months. it would also create added expense as well as on wanted change to the character of our home. he claims that removal of the trees would create a dramatic whole and would be a major loss. this is quite ironic sense when he created his property, and he actually removed two sidewalk trees. you can see one here and another one here. he is tried to prevent us from moving trees to build ours but
it was fine for him to remove two trees on the sidewalk and also other trees on his property. we find that very ironic. in addition, the findings about the tree said they play a small role in adding to the green space. mr. harvey is trying to say that the removal is very significant. in conclusion, please consider that mr. hardy removed two sidewalk trees as well as trees on his property in order to build his home. we feel that it is unfair and inconsistent to deny the same thing granted to mr. hardy. we request that you deny the repeal and reinstate the permit to remove the trees.
thank you. >> the reason why is that2 been disabled and therefore when i come back home from grocery or have dinner or even for therapies sometimes, i find it it to bba it difficult job. there are many people with dogs off leash we don't need a -- there are many people dogs off leash. i need a change to improvedt;qy
quality of life. here, we are facing a very important issue and life. who is more important, to have the trees there or the life according to myself. this is the only thing i would like to say and take into consideration the fact that i will plant a new tree as soon as i have the garage. mr. hardy is very unsympathetic towards my case, it is not because of the tree. i feel that my rights are violated not only as a disabled
but also as a gain in san francisco. he does not talk to me. i did go to the meeting. one day he cannot actually organize a plan that has been working for more than 12 months. >> i think the department's perspective on this case is that we are comfortable with two solutions. we would love to see the trees preserved if that is possible. we are not architects so we
cannot weigh in on the feasibility of these plans. these trees were found to be good condition and the initial condition was to tonight the removal. i think the department of supportive of having a replacement tree if we can confirm that there is sufficient volume for that to become significant. ideally we would like to see both trees preserved but we cannot of body weight of the merits of the alternate proposal so we would refer to the board on that and request that the initial finding is upheld and would be imposed for any tree which cannot be replaced which at this point would just be the street.
>> this would be the number tree, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> i have one quick question, did you have an opportunity to read this brief? >> no, we did not receive the entire appeal. there is a parallel building permit application that is currently being reviewed by the department and we are waiting for materials from the project's sponsors so that the notification has not been performed yet for the associated garage.
>> when there is a hearing on the garage, will it necessarily happen that the alternative will be reviewed? >> that is something that is considered is a discretionary review is filed on the commission. we need to make sure that we can get everything permitted appropriately and that is something that the commission could consider. i've not had a chance to determine whether they are code complying under the proposal. they can have it in the front set back in that cannot be higher than any 10 feet. as long as they comply with that requirement that they could probably go forward.
>> are the members of the public that like to speak on this item? please step forward. >> i just wanted to bring up the issue that from what i have seen here, this is totally justice. the gentleman remove his own trees and now he does not want his neighbor to do the same thing. i agree that we should try to preserve the trees but there is first human comfort to preserve. thank you. >> are there any other public comments? >> good evening, ladies and
gentleman. my name is joe and nelson. i live the second door down from the applicants. i have lived at my residence for over 40 years. i have enjoyed the tree-lined block yet -- that my husband and i live on. the contention is not the building of the garage. environmentally, i would think that everyone or most of us would like to preserve what is healthy, green, and at the same time creates an inviting ambiance. you have been introduced to two
architectural drawings. comparing the two, we favor the -- design for reasons that are three definite advantages. first, still keeping an open space, and open public parking space, two, no street removal is needed cents there is still ample space between the two street trees to enter his grosz -- garage. i would be delighted to continue to enjoy the view from my living room of both streets with their
lovely canopies. in conclusion, this efficient design is not only cost savings but also environmentally sound. there was a project built in that house and there is no way that they could build his house without a removal of the street trees. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other public comment? please step forward.
>> i am the designer. >> you can speak under rebuttal. >> thank you. >> is anyone else who would like to speak under public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. three minutes. >> with regards to -- and there is a walkway entry that comes up at this point. the steps that do come up might have to be demolished under the applicants proposal.
i think by moving things to the side where this becomes a retaining wall underneath the proposal to pick up the house, what occurs is that those trees could be saved. i think additional cost savings might be incurred. i think our proposal to make this work successfully is really to raise that front wall where it is highlighted at about 12 inches. i have looked at this again and a structural proposal from the applicant and steadied the cross sections in order to come up with this. i think that we have a necessary cut and slopes that are allowed. this needs to be more steady since i don't have the
opportunity to go on site to verify these things. we will see if there are any benefits while this project is being reviewed. thank you. >> how tall is the garage? >> we are less than 10 feet. we are about 8 feet from the high point from the top of our wall. their proposal is actually a higher wall at this point and their proposal is about 11 feet from this point up. this is an existing wall. i think mr. sanchez would agree that either proposal would probably work under the code requirements.
>> ok. thank you. í9>> your location is differentn that you have some reduced height there. your scheme is contingent upon being able to have the right height on the southern side of the door but also to be within the amount ofjé':@jylse the sidewalk and to be able to slope down. are you sure that works? >> i have studied that section. our condition is about 23% on the southern end where we are working the encroachment at 23%. this gets reduced on the northern end and so this is a hyperbolic -- for the encroachment area. this is similar to what they
have proposed with respect to their encroachment. thank you. >> are you finished with your presentation? >> yes. >> i am prepared to answer any questions for the arborist. given the location of your proposed door centered on these trees, the trees would have to be pruned significantly? >> they would not have to be pruned except the secondary branches. this would be a normal pruning. the root pruning would be limited to a cut for the
>> i am the designer. i just wanted to raise a point that the design proposals that claims that they would be raising the wall by 12 inches. they do have the situation and they would be raising this at a wall height by at least 21 inches or 3 7 inch steps. it would change the entry to the front door by three steps, a claim that is not mentioned in their proposal. >> we have and plan that
requires the removal of icky trees, one of which we will replace. mr. hardy is not want to remove the trees. we will lose the progress. we are working in the permit process. if we have to execute the new plan, we would have to reset the contract with our contractor which is a fixed price contract. the cost of commodities has gone up significantly. there will be an additional cost for us. i think there are two factors
here, one this time and one is money as well as the change was the new approach would make to the front of our home. again, we ask you to approve a request to approve the two trees and approve the project. >> i would like to ask one more thing, i am a person who is disabled and normally i stay at home and now i need to start looking people walking the street. the walls come down. have we built another wall? that is not a good idea. this has the same amount of soil. the neighbor could enjoy the trees and everything.